Contemporary candidates may draw scornful fire for their embarrassing public flip-flops but Hillary Clinton’s outright contradictions on the Iraq War represent a far more shameful and serious problem.

A so-called flip-flop reflects a change of mind and, if you’ve shifted position in a more liberal direction (like Al Gore and Dick Gephardt going from anti-abortion to pro-choice on abortion), then the mainstream press will even hail your switch as evidence of “growth.”A contradiction, on the other hand, indicates confusion rather than change; a wretched failure to take a clear position rather than the adoption of an altered position; and an effort to pander to the public by covering both sides of a given issue rather than shifting decisively from one point of view to the other.

Applying this important distinction to the current Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney most certainly flip-flopped on abortion — dropping his self-described “pro-choice” position of 1994, and declaring himself outspokenly “pro-life” some two years ago. By the same token, John Edwards dramatically flip-flopped on the war, now regretting his vote nearly five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq and currently favoring a quick cut-off of funding.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand hasn’t so much changed her position on Iraq as she’s managed to muddy it, striking directly contradictory poses depending on her audience or, perhaps, her mood.

Think about that for a moment. Her mood? Is this what the United States needs as a leader? A person that changes positions with the wind in accordance with her mood? What if she flips her lid over an issue? What then?